J.C.Chaudhry vs HARJINDER SINGH

THIS revision petition challenges the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi substantially confirming the order of the District Forum, Delhi in Appeal No.07/1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in case No.56/2006.

THE facts, in very brief, are that the grand-daughter of the original complainant had enrolled for a two year integrated coaching course with M/s. Akash Institute. At the end of about three months, she opted out of the course. THE Institute refused to refund the balance of the fee on the ground that under the terms and conditions of the admission (Annexure-P1) no such refund was permissible. THE District Forum, while addressing the question of refund, categorically rejected the justification for collecting the entire fee in advance for this two year course, as an unfair trade practice. In the present case the candidate, Sukhna Sahni had attended for just about three out of total twenty four months. While these proceedings were still before the District Forum, the Institute refunded Rs.44656/- retaining the amount of service tax payable to the Government as well as 15% on account of administrative charge levied by the Institution. Taking note of this development the District Forum held that retention of administrative charge was not justifiable. It therefore, directed the institute to refund another Rs.9000/- together with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3000/- towards the cost of litigation.

The appeal of the Institute against this order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission of Delhi, with a limited modification of the order. The award of Rs.5,000/- as compensation was set aside.

IN the revision petition before us against the above mentioned order of the State Commission, Delhi, the primary ground put forth is that the student had chosen to leave of her own volition and not due to any reasons of deficiency in service. It is noted in the letter of the Original complainant Harjinder Singh that, Sukhna Sahni is no more interested to continue studies (Annexure P-2). However, this issue does not need any detailed consideration as the ground for ordering refund was clearly not deficiency in service. It was the essential unjustifiability of collection of bulk fee itself. Therefore, in our view, the State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that no compensation is payable, as the candidate had withdrawn from the course of her own volition. Similarly, we find no justification for deducting administrative charge from the refundable amount when proportionate deduction from the composite fee has already been made. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to costs.